Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hochman (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Hochman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:BIO nor WP:NACADEMICS. Tgeairn (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the 2nd nomination of this article. At the time of the first nomination, BIO and notability guidelines were significantly lighter. See in particular the cleanup work by Borock, Drmies, Zambelo, Kitfoxxe, and others. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not assert any notability. All it says is that he was an expert witness is a few court cases and wrote a few articles in scholarly publications. Borock (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked over the references, and looks like Borock is right. If we set the standard for notability to include this guy, we've have to include all lawyers, physicians, scientists... who have ever been quoted in the lay press. That is setting the bar for notability too low IMO. BakerStMD T|C 22:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage found ABOUT him, just a quote here or there. Nothing found at Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.